Why did MCOT blur out the face of a Thai MP viewing an erotic image in parliament?
Share this on

Why did MCOT blur out the face of a Thai MP viewing an erotic image in parliament?

Fellow bloggers Andrew and Kaewmala (long detailed and well-researched post that covers a few different other issues which are worth reading) already have posted on the porn-in-parliament fuss yesterday. There are two incidents. First, porn appeared on a parliamentary monitor. Second, an MP was caught looking at an erotic image (upon a closer inspection don’t think that would call it porn)  on his phone while sitting in parliament. Thai politicians are been in their news for their behavior in parliament over recent months. Recently, ou had accusations that Deputy PM Chalerm was drunk in parliament. This is not a post on the morality of what they did, but on the Thai media in not naming the person and even in one instance blurring out their face to make it more difficult to identify them.

Yesterday evening, BP was looking at the Bangkok Post and you had the below image:


In addition, an unidentified MP was caught by an unnamed photographer looking at an erotic photo on his cell phone during the House meeting today.

NOTE: To be clear, he is not looking at the photo of the image that was on the monitor. See the uncensored version of the image he was looking at (girl is in black and a different pose) vs the one on the monitor where the girl is in white.

BP: You see despite his beige suit and easily identifiable tie, he is labelled “an unidentified MP” although to be fair they do say it is from an unnamed photographer so they don’t know from which side of the chamber the photo was taken. ASTV Manager have a range of photos from that day. All the MPs are either identified by name or by party except for the MP looking at the erotic photo, but what surprised BP was when watching Channel 9’s Kao Kon Kon Kao news program last night, they deliberately blurred the MP’s face as can be seen from the below screenshot:


Source: From around 5:33 mark of this video – they show the blurred face for a while and then again around 6:40 mark as well.

BP: It is one thing to not label the MP, but to blur out his face (although not to blur out the crotch shot!). What is the rationale for this?  Do MPs need protecting?

btw, the MP was revealed as a Democrat MP when he confessed……


Topics covered: